Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uflorida!ukma!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!osu-cis!att!ihlpb!tainter
From: tainter@ihlpb.ATT.COM (Tainter)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: Ethics of crippler circuitry
Message-ID: <9564@ihlpb.ATT.COM>
Date: 10 Feb 89 21:45:03 GMT
References: <7143@pyr.gatech.EDU> <11630010@hpsmtc1.HP.COM> <4602@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM>
Reply-To: tainter@ihlpb.UUCP (55521-Tainter,J.A.)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Naperville, Illinois
Lines: 26

In article <4602@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM> jackg@tekirl.LABS.TEK.COM (Jack Gjovaag) writes:

>The ethics of adding "crippling" circuitry to an otherwise high
>performance machine to fill a gap in a product line is not at all
>clear to me.

>  Jack Gjovaag
>  Tek Labs

In many cases I am sure this is done not as a marketing ploy but as a
consistency matter.

You introduce A.  Mucho software and 3rd party hardware (or add-on
hardware from your company) is designed and sold for it.

Now you come out with B which is faster, and which can be made more
cheaply than the original A.  You can't stop providing A, there is
hardware and software out there that might have timing dependencies
so you stick in a slow down board (or wire).

In fact, if you just publish  the performance spec and never deliver
one that has that speed you are obligated to slow it down.

Then you get bad mouthed in comp.misc.  Oh well.

--johnathan.a.tainter